|
Post by kj on Jun 11, 2017 10:41:40 GMT
Superb article by Myers on Islam in today's Sunday Times:
"A suicide bomber attacking a concert for little girls is a little earlier in the curve of depravity than I’d expected. But a nurse being cut to pieces as she minded the injured on London Bridge — at this point in the descent into the abyss, perfectly predictable. The Nazis hid their crimes. These people exult in theirs, knowing that the path to a moral nadir is paved with the public glorification of the most revolting violence. It is also paved with passivity, excuses and equivalence from the host communities.
When that stalwart sceptic of the virtues of mass immigration, Mark Dooley, was invited on The Late Late Show 12 years ago, there awaiting him were those grandees of PC sanctimony, Fintan O’Toole and Shalini Sinha, with the usual taunts. Not long afterwards when I put my toe into these same waters, the then Michael D Higgins TD issued a statement through the Labour Party. “The Irish Times, through Kevin Myers, has, once again, reached the sewer level of journalism . . . The contents of his column today go far beyond his usually crafted cowardice . . .”
Post-Hitlerian European societies have done something almost unprecedented in human history. They have mobilised their cultural defences not against outside threats but against those antibodies that are trying to protect them: almost the sociopolitical equivalent of Aids. Indeed, until very recently, being “racist” or an “Islamophobe” carried a far greater cultural taboo than did seeking to destroy the homogeneity or tranquillity of a society. Hence the crushing silence in Germany that greeted Angela Merkel’s treasonable decision two years ago to admit a million Muslim migrants.
The hijab — the full facial veil — is a public refutation of the norms of our society. After the shocking events across Europe over the past year, it should be taboo. Instead, it is becomingly increasingly common in Ireland, and any attempt to outlaw it would probably be denounced as “racist” — a meaningless term in this context, but no matter: the purpose of language here is not to achieve clarity but moral superiority. As (the now) President Higgins keeps telling us, Islam is a religion of peace.
Moreover, the Irish media will do almost anything to promote the notion that there is a rough equilibrium between Islamic and anti-Islamic violence. So RTE News reported at length on Wednesday on the shocking affair of a stone being thrown at a mosque in Galway. Yes, a stone actually being hurled at a building, and now live, over to our Galway correspondent: actually, no-one hurt, no-one even hit — but otherwise, goes the implicit message, it’s really six of one and half a dozen of the other. (Was this the same mosque where a couple of years ago, an RTE reporter repeatedly and pontifically addressed the imam as “Your Holiness”?)
No doubt this parity of victimhood is being promoted to prevent young Muslims being “radicalised”, as the expression goes. An interesting concept, this “radicalisation”. A radicalised Presbyterian turns purple and thunders about Popery. A radicalised Catholic attends five Tridentine Masses a day, bawling out loud in Latin while mainlining on incense. A radicalised member of the Church of Ireland will say that you’re probably right when you say there is no God, but evensong is jolly anyway. A radicalised member of the Church of England has two lumps of sugar in her tea, and yes, perhaps even a second fairy-cake. A radicalised Jew beats the bejayus out of his forehead against the Wailing Wall. And a radicalised Muslim?
You see? We’re using words differently, aren’t we? As we must, tip-toeing round the ecumenical garden wherein all religions are held to be equal, the only differences being stylistic. So, naturally, we ignore the poll ICM conducted for Channel 4 last year which revealed 20% of British Muslims approved of the 07/07 bombings in London,which killed 52 people and maimed many hundreds, and that two thirds of them would not report an Islamic terrorist threat to the authorities. Lovely. Lovelier still is that the figures for young Muslims are far, far worse.
We now know that multiculturalism doesn’t produce artistically enriching fusions but, instead, volitional apartheid. In Britain, immigrants have created autonomous Islamostans, often ruled by sharia law and even by the barbaric knife of FGM. There are many dazzling aspects to this, but perhaps the most wonderful has been the utter silence of British feminists, as hundreds — and perhaps thousands — of underage white girls have been groomed and raped by Muslim men, and uncountable numbers of Islamic girls circumcised.
So how have we in Ireland responded to the experiences of other countries? Have we said: “No, we will not go that way: we are clever enough to learn”? Of course not! Our political classes have been falling over themselves to proclaim the innocence and the Irishness of Ibrahim Halawi, without asking the larger and more obvious questions about what precisely was he doing in Egypt, and what is the relationship between his family and the Muslim Brotherhood.
Jesus, whom European societies have traditionally revered (until we began instead to worship The New Blessed Trinity of Secularism, Gay Rights and the Welfare State) urged us to turn the other cheek, and suggested that maybe he who was without sin might cast the first stone. Mohammed was a little less wobbly. He had 600 Qurayzah Jewish captives, mostly pubescent boys and men, but also one woman, beheaded. And queers? Why, stone ‘em to death. So how can anyone seriously maintain that two religions based on the words and deeds of such utterly different men are in any way comparable?
It’s probably futile saying this, so powerful is the “anti-racism”, “anti- Islamophobe” mob of prating, Christianity-hating liberals, but I believe that we have no historic choice but to seriously restrict the numbers of Muslims moving to Ireland. Furthermore, facial covering should be rigorously outlawed in all public transport, taxis, schools, colleges, banks and EVERY government building. If the enforcement of such measures means a departure from the EU with its toxic and unreal human rights edicts, so be it.
Jesus preceded Mohammed by six centuries, while Patrick preceded him by two.
That wretched, broken entity, “Europe”, might have forgotten its origins: that doesn’t mean we should forget ours."
|
|
|
Post by Maolsheachlann on Jun 11, 2017 11:06:31 GMT
Wonderful article, although I am personally against the banning of the hijab if it can possibly be avoided.
Incidentally, given the mention of Mark Dooley, I brought this forum to his attention and he called it "a wonderful idea".
|
|
|
Post by cato on Jun 11, 2017 18:10:16 GMT
Enjoyed the above article . It shows Myers at his best and how sadly his predictions are coming to pass.
Did anyone notice in the same paper a court case involving a foreign national of a certain religion that permits polygamy who wishes to redefine marriage to allow people to be married to multiple people at the same time?
Is this the next battleground in the war over the nature of marriage in Ireland? How can good multiculturalist liberals deny this man his two wives?
|
|
|
Post by ClassicalRepublican on Jun 13, 2017 10:40:09 GMT
I believe Myers is conflating hijab (headscarf) with niqab (face veil). I have no problem with an outright ban on the face veil and I am rigorous about zero accommodations for religious dress at any time, such as muslim doctors and nurses who refuse to wear above elbow length scrubs at in surgery.
As for polygamy, this was the obvious problem during the marriage referendum. Why would progressives put the redefinition of marriage on the table only to ignore polygamy which is a normal practice all over the world and is a fruitful union. That referendum amounted to a redefinition of equality, over and above a redefinition of marriage.
I'm entirely in favour of a ban on immigration, asylum and refugee appeals from muslim countries and its high time western civilisation came around to understanding that this isn't an extremist position.
|
|
|
Post by cato on Jun 13, 2017 12:26:32 GMT
The Japanese have a very strict immigration policy and have to the best of my knowledge no problem with Islamic inspired violence. I have yet to hear any western liberal denounce the Japanese for racism or islamophobia. Of course only white people are racist as we all know!
Japan has a big problem with an aging population but they have refused to go the western route of permitting unrestricted movement of peoples.
|
|
|
Post by Maolsheachlann on Jun 13, 2017 13:30:11 GMT
One thing that really bothers me, or that strikes me as stupid, is the calls to "modernize" or "reform" Islam. Like that's going to happen! It is what it is. Yes, I understand it doesn't have a solid body of doctrine like Catholicism (nothing does), but I'm sure it's not as wispy as all that.
|
|
|
Post by Young Ireland on Jun 13, 2017 18:04:51 GMT
I believe Myers is conflating hijab (headscarf) with niqab (face veil). I have no problem with an outright ban on the face veil and I am rigorous about zero accommodations for religious dress at any time, such as muslim doctors and nurses who refuse to wear above elbow length scrubs at in surgery. You do realise that this is the sort of thinking that demands that pro-life nurses partake in abortions, right? I appreciate that you are not religious, but your proposals set an alarming precedent that could be used against practising Christians. I think that they will come around to polygamy soon enough, sadly. A blanket ban on immigrants from Muslim countries is bad enough, but outright banning refugees and asylum seekers, some of whom are not even Muslim, and nearly all of whom are fleeing ISIS is just unconscionable. I'm sorry but that is certainly an extremist position and no sugar-coating can take away from that. What's more, I'm shocked that many people, including our moderator, actually liked your post, given that you have effectively called for religious freedom to be curbed for certain groups of people (not just Muslims, by the way, but Sikhs and Orthodox Jews would also be affected by your proposals re dress), and called for an indiscriminate ban on taking in people who are from a Muslim country, even if they are not Muslim (and if they are, they still ought to be given the benefit of the doubt). If this is conservatism, I am not a conservative, and I am not sure that I will post here much longer if this is the direction where things are heading here.
|
|
|
Post by Maolsheachlann on Jun 13, 2017 18:49:19 GMT
The fact that I like a post doesn't mean that I agree with everything in it. But certainly I think we have to start looking pragmatically at Islam. Just saying "religious freedom" as though all religions are the same is to me as silly as saying "freedom to buy and sell" whether it's cannabis or milk. Islam is different. I believe more and more people are thinking this. Bromides about how not all Muslims are terrorists are losing their relevance. What people believe matters. Religion is not like skin colour or gender.
|
|
|
Post by Maolsheachlann on Jun 13, 2017 19:33:48 GMT
My problem with "this is the sort of thinking" arguments is that they run the risk of ignoring significant distinctions. Just as traditional marriage is not the same as apartheid. As a matter of fact I think Muslim dress should be accommodated as far as possible. But I am simultaneously in favour of restrictions on immigration from Muslim countries. We can no longer be naive about this. I don't think it's an extremist position because if it was put to a referendum tomorrow an awful lot of people, perhaps a majority, would support it.
|
|
|
Post by seangladium on Jun 13, 2017 19:59:59 GMT
First of all, I believe that every sovereign nation has a right to control its own borders and moreover that it has a duty to defend its citizens from outside threats. I also believe that Ireland's unique culture should be preserved as much as possible and that Catholicism should be prime. For the most part, I am not in favor of clothing bans as I do not think they address the primary issue, which is the incompatibility of Islam within a Christian society. Perhaps the original post about the banning of asylum seekers or refugees was too broad in its application or interpretation; however, I agree with Maolsheachlann that something is different about Islam in particular and that it is naive to ignore the threat posed by allowing the mass migration of Muslims into any Western country. Even if these refugees don't pose any immediate threat (which is debatable) their offspring may be if and when they embrace the principles of their religion, which calls for violent jihad. Even if some Muslims say jihad can be nonviolent, there is undeniably a sizable portion that agree with the violence and call for more attacks on non-Muslims. I would rather that the West contain the threat Islam poses to places that most people would agree are Muslim countries. Furthermore, I think we have a duty as Christians to assist with the defense of the Christian minorities found within these countries. So far, this has mostly not been the case, and the Western governments have bent over backwards to show how tolerant we are by allowing the mass migration of Muslim refugees. In the United States under Obama, there is evidence that it was government policy to prefer Muslim refugees over Christian ones, which I found abhorrent as Christians there are especially vulnerable. Based on all the recent violence across Europe and the United States which is getting worse by the day, I think it is evident that this policy has failed.
|
|
|
Post by Young Ireland on Jun 13, 2017 21:12:06 GMT
The fact that I like a post doesn't mean that I agree with everything in it. But certainly I think we have to start looking pragmatically at Islam. Just saying "religious freedom" as though all religions are the same is to me as silly as saying "freedom to buy and sell" whether it's cannabis or milk. Islam is different. I believe more and more people are thinking this. Bromides about how not all Muslims are terrorists are losing their relevance. What people believe matters. Religion is not like skin colour or gender. So in other words, do you believe that it is OK to limit the religious freedom of all Muslims on the ground that some, not all of them, are terrorists? Have we not had enough experience guilt by association with regard to the Church at the hands of the secularists?
|
|
|
Post by Young Ireland on Jun 13, 2017 21:16:01 GMT
My problem with "this is the sort of thinking" arguments is that they run the risk of ignoring significant distinctions. Just as traditional marriage is not the same as apartheid. As a matter of fact I think Muslim dress should be accommodated as far as possible. But I am simultaneously in favour of restrictions on immigration from Muslim countries. We can no longer be naive about this. I don't think it's an extremist position because if it was put to a referendum tomorrow an awful lot of people, perhaps a majority, would support it. Come on Maolscheachlann, you don't know that. And besides, how would you feel if you were denied entry into a country because the authorities think that you support the IRA simply on account of your Irishness. What you are proposing regarding the Muslims is pretty much the same thing.
|
|
|
Post by Maolsheachlann on Jun 13, 2017 21:20:33 GMT
It's not on the grounds that some of them are terrorists. It's on the grounds that the religion is conducive to terrorism and this has been amply demostrated at this stage. I'm not proposing to restrict anyone's religious freedom; I believe Muslims here should be allowed to practice their religion. But I think it's only pragmatic at this stage to restrict the amount that are here, as far as we can. It's not a matter of guilt by association; it's a matter of risk assessment.
I just think we have to distinguish between anti-Catholicism and anti-jihadism. One is illogical and the other is logical. Why do you think it's not permissible to make such distinctions?
|
|
|
Post by Young Ireland on Jun 13, 2017 21:25:14 GMT
It's not on the grounds that some of them are terrorists. It's on the grounds that the religion is conducive to terrorism and this has been amply demostrated at this stage. I'm not proposing to restrict anyone's religious freedom; I believe Muslims here should be allowed to practice their religion. But I think it's only pragmatic at this stage to restrict the amount that are here, as far as we can. It's not a matter of guilt by association; it's a matter of risk assessment. I just think we have to distinguish between anti-Catholicism and anti-jihadism. One is illogical and the other is logical. Why do you think it's not permissible to make such distinctions? Because not all Muslims are jihadists. There is no more correlation between being Muslim and jihadism than there is between Irish Catholics and the Provisional IRA. Barring all Muslims because they are Muslims is indeed anti-Muslim because you are discriminating against them because of their religion.
|
|
|
Post by Maolsheachlann on Jun 13, 2017 21:25:54 GMT
I don't think the IRA campaign at its worst was anything comparable to the international jihad we see now. I don't think analogy is a fair one. But I do believe in a sovereign nation's control over its borders so I would accept their decision (with much annoyance, no doubt).
You are talking about applying rather gentlemanly principles to an ideological force which has no such qualms.
|
|